Josephus' TF the source for Tacitus' reference to Jesus?

[Ben C. Smith]

Well perhaps we can bring it back into context.

In the Josephus passage, so-called, then there is -no- statement about Jesus being Christ... unless one thinks that the passage was unedited. The distinction is made that Jesus is "called the Christ" (20.200 and 18.63 both allegedly have such wording). But the person is introduced as "Jesus."

On the other hand, the Latin-writing Tacitus seems to share the perspective of Pliny and Suetonius, by referring to this person as "Christ."

If Tacitus read Josephus, he was none the wiser for doing so, in that he does not call Jesus by his actual name.

Surely, if the reference is genuine, Tacitus elected to call him Christ in order to connect him by name to the Chrestians whom he has just mentioned, right? Or are you saying that it is unlikely Tacitus would not have used both names, Jesus and Christ?

Ben.

[Secret Alias]

I don't know why people make such a big deal about Tacitus's report. Even if the report is genuine he only reporting what he was told or what he surmised from bits and pieces of evidence. The existence or non-existence of Jesus cannot be proven based on a single Roman witness:

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind".

(In Latin: ergo abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos et quaesitissimis poenis adfecit, quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Chrestianos appellabat. auctor nominis eius Christus Tibero imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat; repressaque in praesens exitiablilis superstitio rursum erumpebat, non modo per Iudaeam, originem eius mali, sed per urbem etiam, quo cuncta undique atrocia aut pudenda confluunt celebranturque. igitur primum correpti qui fatebantur, deinde indicio eorum multitudo ingens haud proinde in crimine incendii quam odio humani generis convicti sunt.)

[Peter Kirby]

Well perhaps we can bring it back into context.

In the Josephus passage, so-called, then there is -no- statement about Jesus being Christ... unless one thinks that the passage was unedited. The distinction is made that Jesus is "called the Christ" (20.200 and 18.63 both allegedly have such wording). But the person is introduced as "Jesus."

On the other hand, the Latin-writing Tacitus seems to share the perspective of Pliny and Suetonius, by referring to this person as "Christ."

If Tacitus read Josephus, he was none the wiser for doing so, in that he does not call Jesus by his actual name.

Surely, if the reference is genuine, Tacitus elected to call him Christ in order to connect him by name to the Chrestians whom he has just mentioned, right? Or are you saying that it is unlikely Tacitus would not have used both names, Jesus and Christ?

Ben.

Did Tacitus elect to 'call' him Christ? Did he choose between alternatives known to him? That's not really apparent.

As to using both the name of Jesus and the point that he was being 'called (the) Christ,' and connecting the name of Christian to this one being 'called (the) Christ,' that is exactly what is imagined to have happened in the Testimonium passage.

What is clear is that Tacitus doesn't 'call' him Christ but rather mentions a Christus, as if that were indeed his name. As it stands, Tacitus gives the name of the "founder of the name" as Christ (as Pliny does also), while Ant. 18.63 and 20.200 give the name as Jesus.

There's not much to go on at all--and the Testimonium & 20.200 reference aren't from Josephus, anyway--but the name used in the Annals 15.44 passage doesn't point to the Tacitus account being dependent on a Josephan account (but, rather, against it). This is especially true if we view Tacitus as being relatively careful about accuracy. Of course, he could only be as accurate as the information he had was accurate, but if he had the Testimonium then he would know the name were in fact Jesus.

(Finally, on a completely different note, I would say that the passage's perspective of treating Christianity as an outsider would, thus adopting the perspective of a disdainful Tacitus, would lead a Christian writer to suppose that Tacitus would not refer to him as Christ, as that would carry theological freight that the interpolator would not attribute to Tacitus. But then, since the passage does use Christ as the name here, and since it does take a disdainful and skeptical view, this combination of facts suggests the naive usage of the pagan historian himself, who seems to be unaware that the founder of the name, being called the 'Chrestians' by the people, is anything other than simply one whose name was Christ.)

(One last note--this distinction in spelling between 'Chrestiani' [the people's attribution of the name] and 'Christus' [the founder of the name] may just be another illustration of the pride that Tacitus takes in being exactly right. So why not further mention of the name of Jesus, if he knew of that, to rub it in deep and avoid the shame of being himself in error?)

[Secret Alias]

I've always wondered whether the 'historical Jesus' developed from the exoteric tradition associated with the gospel (= what was used to fool outsiders). If the gospel was written in such a way it could be taken in two different sense (much like the Pentateuch) maybe the seeds for the historical Jesus were already there even though it wasn't what was reserved for the elect.

[Ben C. Smith]

Did Tacitus elect to call him Christ? That's not really clear.

In an absolute sense, sure, that is not clear. But in an argumentative sense, if you are meaning to actually register an objection against the hypothesis (as if to say: surely Tacitus would have used the name of Jesus, instead of just calling him Christ, had he found it in his source), then you have to show where the problem lies in Tacitus omitting Jesus but retaining Christ.

You appear to start off in that direction here:

This is especially true if we view Tacitus as being relatively careful about accuracy.

And this is where examples would come in handy, examples of Tacitus making a point of including available names for sake of completeness (and there may be other ways to show it, as well). Offhand, I do not know how Tacitus handles these sorts of things elsewhere, and, until I find out, I find it difficult to feel the weight of the missing Jesus as an actual objection. If this has been covered elsewhere, and you are assuming my knowledge of it, then I plead ignorance, and humbly ask you to point me in the right direction.

To be transparent, I used to be enthusiastic, as I mentioned, about the case that Carlson made for Tacitus deriving his comments on Christ from Josephus. That is no longer the case. But I do not want any inadequate arguments to slip by in either direction.

Ben.

[Peter Kirby]

The best argument here is simply that the passage were not yet in Josephus to be read.

And this is where examples would come in handy

Certainly would...

[Ben C. Smith]

The best argument here is simply that the passage was not yet in Josephus to be read.

I agree that undercutting the Testimonium altogether is the best argument against Tacitus having used it. However, I was attempting to comply with the spirit of the thread:

In this thread, we're working on the assumptions that Tacitus' passage is authentic, and that Josephus wrote *something* about Jesus in a pre-tampered with TF, and whether or not anyone has ever explored in any detail the thought that this may have been Tacitus' source for his passage.

Ben.

[MrMacSon]

Ben, what do you mean by "undercutting the Testimonium altogether"?

[Ben C. Smith]

Ben, what do you mean by "undercutting the Testimonium altogether"?

I merely meant arguing or assuming that the Testimonium is, in its entirety, an interpolation. Prove that Josephus lacked the pericope altogether, and you have pretty much already proven that Tacitus did not use it.

Ben.

[MrMacSon]

Cheers, Ben. Yes, if the TF is all (or mostly?) interpolation, Tacitus could not have used it.